HHP: Pythagorean record and the Gaussian Copula-Function: How I learned to stop worrying and love

[Flash- bd]

Since I think Bd and Jim both have you on ignore at this point, I'd like to ask you an honest question. Is that really fairly to Jim based on the discussion in this thread? The guy went above and beyond to be courteous here. If anything, I'm the one you should be calling out with your ridiculous point.

Yeah, but do people really even need to call you out (laughing)? All you did was express some jaded-ness with a real worn discussion here. It's funny that people (or maybe just: the person, singular) that do so do so under the pretense of defending the OP, but it's more of an insult to the OP than what you've posted. The guy has expressed himself articulately and discussed intelligently (and humorously, at times), does he really need you jumping to his defense (or using him for your agenda)? I'm pretty sure he can fend for himself...

EDIT: I thought it was clear, but the person I'm referring to here is not Malike.

Well, when the same three guys show up everytime to display their vast comprehension of statistical knowledge whenever somebody tries to discuss it at a less orthodox level, then I guess the shoe fits.

Congrats on spewing orthodoxy. I guess that makes you a real thinker. Just as you imagine yourself.

One of many counter-examples to your (no use sugar-coating it) BS (and an absolute refutal, in truth): http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/124267-SI-com-Why-the-O-s-Post-Season-Dream-is-all-but-Impossible/page8

My stance on this whole thing is anything but orthodox, and I guarantee you can't find one example of it as such.

As for the ignore option, I don't utilize it. You don't bother me at all (though I do feel bad for others when you troll in their threads). Your troll-ery is too easy to call out/identify and your serious insecurity/inferiority complex is so blatant and--to use your terminology--spewed all over the place that it's vaguely complimentary.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah, but do people really even need to call you out (laughing)? All you did was express some jaded-ness with a real worn discussion here. It's funny that people (or maybe just: the person, singular) that do so do so under the pretense of defending the OP, but it's more of an insult to the OP than what you've posted. The guy has expressed himself articulately and discussed intelligently (and humorously, at times), does he really need you jumping to his defense (or using him for your agenda)? I'm pretty sure he can fend for himself...

Look, to the extent that (for instance) Malike is rushing to the defense of the thread in an effort to make sure that people don't crap all over the posts of (particularly new) folks who put some thought into what they write, I generally support that. Over the years, this place has gotten to be a bit like Shark Week, at times.* Just chum and fangs and short commercial breaks. He admitted he's a bit punchy, but the point is an okay one. CA-O was being a little curt, too, because in the big picture he's weary of the discussion. As far as disputes go, there's no real there there.

As for our sweet [and oh so sour] little Gherkin, well, he's got his own issues it would appear.

*I really do try to stick to interrogating ideas, and really do try to take ideas seriously on their own terms. That's why I get frustrated when folks are acting in troll-ish ways (if not being outright trolls). I should probably just ignore it. I know. To the extent that folks feel like I'm picking on people, or claiming that they don't have a right to opinion, well, I apologize. That's certainly not my stance. [AND I'll double back and apologize doubly for the highjack. Lucky Jim out.]

[CA-ORIOLE]

You, Jim, and BD, are about courteous as a wolfpack when somebody says something that offends your orthodox sensibilities. Ignore me then. You as well.

I'll say what I want to, and if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it wasn't said, more power to you.

Interesting that you're not man enough to answer the question. Says a lot about you.

I'll ignore you when the moderators tell me to. Until then I'll continue to call you out for your consistent nonsense and lack of analytical thinking, which is pretty well documented and fairly easy to expose.

[Pickles]

Interesting that you're not man enough to answer the question. Says a lot about you.

I'll ignore you when the moderators tell me to. Until then I'll continue to call you out for your consistent nonsense and lack of analytical thinking, which is pretty well documented and fairly easy to expose.

What's the direct question?

Expose my nonsense and lack of analytics for us all to see then.

Cause there seemed to be a legitimate conversation going on until the Three Amigos showed up to piss all over it. As usual.

[Pickles]

Yeah, but do people really even need to call you out (laughing)? All you did was express some jaded-ness with a real worn discussion here. It's funny that people (or maybe just: the person, singular) that do so do so under the pretense of defending the OP, but it's more of an insult to the OP than what you've posted. The guy has expressed himself articulately and discussed intelligently (and humorously, at times), does he really need you jumping to his defense (or using him for your agenda)? I'm pretty sure he can fend for himself...

One of many counter-examples to your (no use sugar-coating it) BS (and an absolute refutal, in truth): http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/124267-SI-com-Why-the-O-s-Post-Season-Dream-is-all-but-Impossible/page8

My stance on this whole thing is anything but orthodox, and I guarantee you can't find one example of it as such.

As for the ignore option, I don't utilize it. You don't bother me at all (though I do feel bad for others when you troll in their threads). Your troll-ery is too easy to call out/identify and your serious insecurity/inferiority complex is so blatant and--to use your terminology--spewed all over the place that it's vaguely complimentary.

I gotta be honest, I just read that link, and I didn't post on that thread. So what was your point regarding me?

[SteveA]

Who knows what'll happen. I don't, I don't believe anyone who says they do

It's probably a good thing that no one has said they do, I guess.

Well, plenty of people have. These are just a couple. (BTW, I am not picking on or making fun of these people, these were just the

easiest examples I could find because the thread got bumped yesterday. I believe there have been plenty of posts that expressed

certainty of a collapse/bad finish):

Tony, OH, on July 14:

It's not a question of if we are going to implode, we have been imploding over the last 20 games. We are already in the free fall and when you look at the this lineup and rotation (especially if Hammel goes out for any extended time), and it's going to be a long brutal second half. this isn't a rant, and it's not reactionary, it's just the cold hard facts.

Va Beach O's Fan, on July 14 (boldface is mine):

I was really just refering to this year. I think we are seeing reality set in and the inevitable O's slide to the cellar has begun.

[Lucky Jim]

Y

EDIT: I thought it was clear, but the person I'm referring to here is not Malike.

My bad.

I use the ignore for the utilitarian benefit. The board doesn't need to watch me engage in stupid arguments with anyone, and - in the end - I don't trust my ability to resist it. That's it.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, plenty of people have. These are just a couple. (BTW, I am not picking on or making fun of these people, these were just the

easiest examples I could find because the thread got bumped yesterday. I believe there have been plenty of posts that expressed

certainty of a collapse/bad finish):

Tony, OH, on July 14:

Va Beach O's Fan, on July 14 (boldface is mine):

Okay - fair enough. I'm not speaking for Tony or VaBOF, but I was talking about the recent Pythag conversations. I didn't see those statements there. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has espoused the end of the O's. No one who has argued for the validity of the Pythag as one way of viewing the season has argued that it is built for accurate prediction.

[CA-ORIOLE]

What's the direct question?.

It has to do with the words directly after "I'd like to ask you an honest question"

I know I normally have to repeat stuff five times for you, but here you go:

I'd like to ask you an honest question. Is that really fair to Jim based on the discussion in this thread? The guy went above and beyond to be courteous here. If anything, I'm the one you should be calling out with your ridiculous point.

[Pickles]

It has to do with the words directly after "Let me ask you an honest question".

Oh, honesty. Sorry, I didn't know that was your thing. Like when I asked you "direct" questions, which you claimed to be strawmen? In the face of all logic?

Regarding this thread, I stand by what I say. There was a legit conversation going on concerning "stats" till the three amigos had to show up, piss all over it, and pat themselves on the back as they did it. Like they also do. As if they configured the stats themselves. What kind of sadness defends another man's work with the ferocity a real man would retain for his own? Can you answer that direct question?

[Flash- bd]

Oh, honesty. Sorry, I didn't know that was your thing. Like when I asked you "direct" questions, which you claimed to be strawmen? In the face of all logic?

Regarding this thread, I stand by what I say. There was a legit conversation going on concerning "stats" till the three amigos had to show up, piss all over it, and pat themselves on the back as they did it. Like they also do. As if they configured the stats themselves. What kind of sadness defends another man's work with the ferocity a real man would retain for his own? Can you answer that direct question?

In Today's The World According to Pickles!:

Pickles definition of: "defend[ing] another man's work with the ferocity a real man would retain for his own":

I can't believe I actually convinced myself to read through another thread on this topic, but since I did: 1) While the subprime metaphor might not have been particularly apt, the bomb/Dr. Strangelove situation to Pythag-Orioles/OH situation is absolutely so. 2) I now understand Lucky Jim's name...I always thought he was just a guy named Jim who thought Lucky Jim had a nice ring to it. 3) The two posts above this one [by DrungoHazewood and OP cityknight] are pretty damn funny.

Ferocious!

[Lucky Jim]

I'm not really in this argument, but the OP didn't seem to think I did anything untoward.

Debating with you isn't fair if you're going to be magnanimous and articulate (and correct). No, my position is not directed at you, or those who are trying to be sensible about the Orioles' future. It directed at people I'll never meet because being contemptuous of their disdain for the Orioles is deeply satisfying every time we put another one in the WIN column.

[Flash- bd]

Magnanimous and articulate? More like magnanimous bastard!

(That is, only if magnanimous means what I think it does: really big, or immense, as in magnified cross-pollinated with enormous)

[CA-ORIOLE]

Oh, honesty. Sorry, I didn't know that was your thing.

Regarding this thread, I stand by what I say. There was a legit conversation going on concerning "stats" till the three amigos had to show up, piss all over it, and pat themselves on the back as they did it. Like they also do. As if they configured the stats themselves. ?

So basically you don't mind misreprestning LJ as pissing all over this thread when the author of the OP had no issue with him at all. I was the only one that needed to be called out here.

Like when I asked you "direct" questions, which you claimed to be strawmen? In the face of all logic?

Yeah, I remember some of those questions/logic:

"Why can't I say that pitchers wins have value a just s UZR and FIP having value. They are just as arbitrary."

"What defensive metrics have been developed since Cal Ripken retired."

"Nick Markakis's defensive metrics have always been below average, just look at his dWAR"

"Since WAR is published annually and defensive stats are stable over three years then WAR is flawed"

What kind of sadness defends another man's work with the ferocity a real man would retain for his own? Can you answer that direct question

Why would anyone would ever accuse you of making strawman Pickles? To be clear I don't need to defend LJ. That shoud be obvious to anyone on this board, even you if you had an ounce of honesty and integrity. I'm just pointing out your ongoing hypocricy. You know he has you on ignore, yet you have zero conscious about taking the opportunity to make totally false and baseless attacks on him here in this thread. That says volumes about your character.

Go ahead and have the last word Pickles. No need to ruin this thread anymore than it has been. I'll certanly take my share of the blame for that.

[Flash- bd]

So basically you don't mind misreprestning LJ as pissing all over this thread when the author of the OP had no issue with him at all. I was the only one that needed to be called out here.

Yes, but you are An Amigo, so by the Pickles Law of Universal Transgression one Amigos words= words of all the Amigos.

Amigos Unite! Once an amigo, always an amigo. Amigo since 8/14, and forever.

Posted by bd, proud member of The Three Amigos.